BID FOR YOUR COE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE

The chorus of voices calling for reform to the COE system is rising again. This is largely brought about by despair about the sustained sky-high prices recently.

Actually, the main objection to the COE system in its present form should not be about high prices.  High COE prices are largely due to the free market forces of supply and demand.

What has not been realized is that the COE is actually not the price of the right to buy a car. Such a right to buy any legal product, including cars, has never been relinquished by Singaporeans, so there is no need to buy it back.

The COE is actually an additional tax levied on the purchase of a vehicle. What's wrong with it is that it is an absolute amount in dollar terms and is the same for the purchase of all vehicles in their own category irrespective of the actual vehicle price.

This has obviously led to an inequitable situation whereby poorer buyers of cheaper cars are paying a much higher COE tax than richer buyers of expensive cars. For example, a buyer of a Porsche 911 Carrera 3.4 PDK(A) who pays Stuttgard Auto $467,098 OTR including $96,210 for his Cat B COE actually pays a COE Tax of 25.9%. A buyer of a Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Classic (A) who purchases his car from Borneo Motors for $146,988 OTR including $92,100 for his Cat A COE will not realize that he is paying more than 6.5 times higher COE Tax of 167.8%!

No wonder most COEs nowadays are used to buy expensive luxury or sports cars. Even so-called cheap economy cars are now priced out of the pockets of the ordinary wage earner.

A system that favors the richer people and penalizes the poorer people is inherently unfair and must be rectified. If the COE is a tax, it cannot be an absolute quantum irrespective of the value of the car. 

We should bid for COEs as a percentage of the purchase price of the car. That way, buyers are fully aware of the extra tax they are paying for the privilege of buying a car. It will be much fairer and, unlike now, COE prices will be unlikely to stay at unearthly levels.

(NB. An edited version of this article was published in The Straits Times Forum Section today.)

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER PASSING

Another day, another passing.

More sadness, more mourning?

Do we spend our time waiting,

For the grim reaper's next coming?

Do we go on ignoring the inevitable,

By pretending that we're invincible?

Is this blind strategy still feasible,

If life's ticking clock is now audible?

Death only happens to other people,

No final thoughts for you to grapple?

Temporary doubts you have a couple,

But, will you live life on the double?

Now, if death is all but inevitable,

Why fret and try the impossible?

Shouldn't we enjoy it while we're able,

While making our lives remarkable?

GUNS IN THE US - TO CONTROL OR NOT TO CONTROL

The latest American mass shooting incident in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown on 14 December 2012 has refocused attention on the gun laws there.  To Asians like us, it is a little shocking to realize that the Second Amendment has been interpreted to guarantee the right of all persons to own or use guns in any place and at any time. It stated: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  The common-sense interpretation would be that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the right of the government to maintain an armed militia to protect the nation.  So, the right to bear arms should be a communal right, not an individual right.

But the interpretation for individual rights to bear arms had resulted in 80 million Americans, in about 50% of households, owning more than 223 million guns!  This makes the the US the nation with the highest rate of gun ownership and, not surprisingly, of gun homicide in the developed world.

The History of A Mass Shooting Epidemic

The following is a list of horrific mass shootings over the years that makes the US the epicenter of a gun violence epidemic:

(1) June 29, 1984 - Ianni's Club, Dallas, TX  - killed 6, wounded 1.

(2) July 18, 1984 - McDonald's Restaurant, San Ysidro, CA - killed 21 (plus shooter = 22), wounded 19.

(3) January 17, 1989 - Cleveland Elementary School, Stockton, CA - killed 5 (plus shooter = 6), wounded 30.

(4) September 14, 1989 - Standard Gravure Corporation, Louisville, KY - killed 8 (plus shooter = 9), wounded 12.

(5) June 18, 1990 - General Motors Acceptance Corporation Office, Jacksonville, F - killed 9 (plus shooter = 10), wounded 4.

(6) October 16, 1991 -Luby's Cafeteria, Killeen, TX - killed 23 (plus shooter = 24), wounded 20.

(7) July 1, 1993 - 101 California Street Office of Pettit & Martin Law Firm, San Francisco, CA - killed 8 (plus shooter = 9), wounded 6.

(8) December 7, 1993 - Long Island Railroad, Long Island, NY - killed 6, wounded 19.

(9) June 20, 1994 - Fairchild Air Force Base, WA - killed 5 (plus shooter = 6), wounded 23. 

(10) December 18, 1997 - Caltrans Maintenance Yard, Orange, CA - killed 4 (plus shooter = 5), wounded 2.

(11) March 6, 1998 - Connecticut State Lottery Headquarters, Newington, CT -killed 4 (plus shooter = 5), wounded 0. 

(12) March 24, 1998 - Westside Middle School Jonesboro, AR - killed 5, wounded 10.

(13) May 20-21, 1998 - Thurston High School, Springfield, OR - killed 4, wounded 25.

 (14) April 20, 1999 - Columbine High School, Littleton, CO - killed 13 (plus shooters = 15),
wounded 23.

(15)September 15, 1999 - Wedgwood Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX - killed 7 (plus shooter = 8),
wounded 7.

(16) November 2, 1999 - Xerox Office Building, Honolulu, HI - killed 7, wounded 0.

(17) December 26 - Edgewater Technology Office, 2000 Wakefield, MA -killed 7, wounded 0.

(18) November 21, 2004 - Hunting Camp, Meteor, WI - killed 6, wounded 3.

(19) April 16, 2007 - Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA - killed 32 (plus shooter = 33), wounded 17.

(20) December 5, 2007 - Westroads Mall, Omaha, NE - killed 8 (plus shooter = 9), wounded 5.

(21) February 14, 2008 - Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL - killed 5 (plus shooter = 6), wounded 21.

(22) April 3, 2009 - American Civic Association, Binghamton, NY - killed 13 (plus shooter = 14), wounded 4.

(23) November 5, 2009 - Fort Hood, TX - killed 13, wounded 30.

(24) August 3, 2010 - Hartford Beer Distributor, Manchester, CT - killed 8 (plus shooter = 9), wounded 2.

(25) January 8, 2011 - US Rep Gabriel Giffords congress on Your Corner, Tucson, AZ - killed 6, wounded 13.

(26) July 7, 2011 - Grand Rapids, MI - killed 7 (plus shooter = 8), wounded 2.
 

(27) September 6, 2011 - Carson City IHOP, Carson City, NV - killed 4 (plus shooter = 5), wounded 7.

(28) July 20, 2012 - The Dark Knight Rises: Movie Theater Shooting, Aurora, CO - killed 12, wounded 58.

(29) August 5, 2012 - Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, Oak Creek, WI - killed 6 (plus shooter = 7), wounded 3.

(30) December 14, 2012 - Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT - killed 27 (plus shooter = 28), wounded unknown.

The resistance to Gun Control

Some Americans resist gun control for the following reasons: 

1. Individual resistance to Govt tyranny is aided by the possession of guns.
2. The right to bear arms is a civil right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
3. Gun possession by law-abiding citizens helps in self-defence against criminals.
4. Gun possession by law-abiding citizens deters attacks from criminals.
5. Guns are needed for recreational purposes. 

My Four Pertinent Questions to Advocates of Gun Possession:

1. Is there an epidemic of mass shootings in the US? Yes (fact)!
2. Is an American 20 times more likely to be killed by a gun than a citizen from any other developed country? Yes (fact)!
3. Should we do something to change the status quo? I think we should.
4. If so, is some kind of gun control the best way to prevent further unnecessary loss of lives in America? I'll leave that for Americans to answer.

O, HOW I TRIED TO TELL THEM!

O, how I tried to tell them,
Using logic and every theorem.
But with ears they couldn't hear, 
Immune to reason far and near.

It doesn't matter how loudly I shout,
Or strain to scream my heart out.
With hearts and minds frozen by fear,
Just stony and indifferent they appear.

So, instead I tried to whisper,
Controlling my boiling temper,
While fighting back my every tear,
For this mission I love so dear.

Can we, at least, speak from the heart?
But there's reluctance on their part.
Their shells impenetrable front and rear,
To any form of verbal arrow or spear.

So, presently, I have fallen silent,
No more the intellectual dissident. 
For it is now exceedingly clear,
That there's no desire for a higher gear!

EXAMINING THIS SPECIAL PERSON CALLED JESUS CHRIST

Most biblical and modern secular scholars as well as historians are in broad agreement that Jesus as a historical figure is not in dispute.  Although debate is still continuing, the various arguments casting doubt on the authenticity of Christ's existence, constituting the so-called Christ myth theory, from Strauss onwards have largely been discredited.

So, the main question that remains is: if Jesus was a real person in history and had allegedly claimed or been worshiped as the Son of God, how should we judge C S Lewis' trilemma?

What is the trilemma?

In brief, the trilemma can be summarized as the "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument. It states that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and this leaves us with only 3 possibilities:

1. Liar: Jesus knew that he was not the Son of God, but yet, he said he was.
2. Lunatic: Jesus said he was the Son of God because he was mistaken. 
3. Lord: Jesus said he was the Son of God because that was the truth.

C S Lewis' original trilemma

C S Lewis used his trilemma to appeal to people who are already believers and who accept the accuracy of the bible to convince them that since Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, it is not logical to call him merely a great moral teacher.  He stated that the believer is compelled to choose between Jesus being either a liar, a lunatic or the Son of God; and between these 3 options, he argued that since Jesus' behavior was not consistent with being a liar or a lunatic, being the Son of God is the most probable conclusion.

Josh McDowell's use of the trilemma

After believing that he had established the reliability of the Bible, McDowell used the trilemma as an additional logical proof of the Christian religion to compel Christian belief.  

Is the trilemma compelling?

For it to be compelling, it needs to satisfy the 10 conditions below.  My personal judgement on each of these conditions are indicated as
      +  =  probable
      -   =  improbable
      ?   =  needs more evidence
     ??  =  we may never know

1.  Jesus, as an actual person, existed in history. + (there are good historical evidence of Jesus' existence)

2. The bible is a factually reliable document.  It must accurately record the existence of a real person called Jesus Christ, his behavior, his words and his miracles. - (few people believe in the literal truth of the bible any more)

3. Jesus must be found to have unequivocally claimed to be the Son of God. - (there are doubts that Jesus directly claimed that he is the Son of God)

4. Only an insane person can have the false belief that he himself is God. - (a person suffering from schizophrenia may have delusions, but a deluded person may not be insane)

5. Jesus was not insane. ? (psychiatric illnesses can be subtle)

6. A great moral teacher would not lie. - (a lack of personal truthfulness does not preclude the ability to conduct moral instruction)

7. Jesus was, in fact, a great moral teacher. + (no historical evidence pointing to the contrary)

8. Given the circumstances, the Liar, Lunatic and Lord possibilities are the only ones. - (these are obviously false choices as there are unlimited possibilities)

9. The trilemma is not self-contradicted or in itself not a circular argument. - (the trilemma presented 3 false choices precisely because it wanted us to reject the highly unlikely 'Liar' and 'Lunatic" possibilities)

10. Jesus' existence, character, actual words and actions are not a mystery. ?? (we may never know the true character of Jesus)

Conclusion

The trilemma does not stand.

THE TOYOTA GT86

Enough said! Forget about the Porsche and get this car.

"42"

 
 
In the book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams, an enormous supercomputer took 7.5 million years to calculate the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.  The puzzling answer was "42"! 

If you ask your friends, your family members, your colleagues or even a passer-by on the street, the answer to this "ultimate question" can be highly variable. Some may say the answer lies in having lots of money, diamonds, Ferraris, Patek Philippes, big bungalows and such.  Some will swear it's to eat, drink and be merry. Some find the answer in God or religion.  The social types will list world peace, democracy, equality and freedom from poverty and hunger as their ultimate answers.  Yet others of a New Age temperament may cite contentment, inner peace and self-fulfilment.

The curious thing is that few people will ask themselves what the question was that they were answering. What actually is this "Ultimate Question".  Granted that the answer was "42", Douglas Adams himself wondered what was the question and in his book, a planet-sized computer using organic components was set up to find this elusive "Ultimate Question".  He named this computer "Earth"!

Implicitly, Adams seems to be telling us that earthly life and human existence are all about the search for meaning. It is to make sense of our finite life-span and our short appearance in this whole vastness of space and time. In short, the "ultimate question" is about what's the most important thing in existence. So, after a hundred thousand years, are we closer to uncovering the "ultimate question"?

What's the meaning of life and existence?  How should we live? Is trusting God all we need to do?  Is life a process of perfecting humanity.  Is love the unifying force of the Universe?

Whatever the question, if the answer to it is still "42", it implies that the Universe is an indifferent place with no clear meaning.  If we are string theory physicists, we may conjecture that our Universe is merely Universe No. 42 in a sea of parallel universes, each not aware of the existence of all the others.  In such infinite vastness, it seems silly to even think about such small questions of our life, our own universe and our everything.

Perhaps, all our philosophers, thinkers and spiritualists should drop all delusions of grandeur and return to the position of the existentialist; that of inventing meaning for each of our lives in our own way, however small and insignificant.

THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Science

The process of science starts with an observation.  From this, a hypothesis is made as a general statement about the observation. Experimentation and further observations are made to determine whether the evidence contradict the hypothesis or not.  If not, it stands pending further testing and evidence.  Meanwhile, a logical reason or mechanism is offered to explain why the hypothesis is true.  This is called a theory.  The theory will help mankind to better understand the universe and create useful applications. If minor contradicting evidence is later found, the theory may be modified.  But, if major inconsistencies are found, the theory or the hypothesis. or both, may have to be abandoned.  The longer the theory stands, the closer it is to being an established fact; but it is always subjected to change depending on future evidence.  Scientific facts are defined by their tentative nature.  

Science is guided by two underlying principles: probabilistic induction and falsifiability. Simplistically, probabilistic inductive logic implies that if the same result is repeatedly obtained during experimentation under the same conditions, that result is likely to be a real one.  And, if a scientific hypothesis or theory cannot hitherto been proven wrong; that is, there is a lack of falsification, then it stands. 

Religion

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are borne from absolute and unalterable ideas. Oftentimes, by the nature of the claims made, religious ideas are not amenable to proof or disproof, but consist of bald and permanent statements. It does not need any evidence to back their claims.  If contradicting evidence arise, they can be ignored.  In fact, it is considered laudable to persist in such beliefs in spite of the lack of supportive evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. Such persistence is sometimes encouraged as a sign of strength in religious faith.  

In religion, the guiding principles are that of faith, to ensure belief and adherence; and obedience, lest one risks entailing some kind of penalty, be it bad Karma or a passage to Hell.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, science is the human quest for truth; religions are various efforts to subdue the fears and anxieties of mortality by submitting to the comfort of ready-made doctrines. 

From the foregoing, science and religion seem to be poles apart and it appears difficult to reconcile their differences.  Attempts to heal this apparent conflict culminated in Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).  NOMA divides the magisterium of science which occupies the empirical realm of facts and theory; from the magisterium of religion which provides the answers to the questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria are said to never overlap.

Yet, in everyday life, we know that the concerns of science and religion do intersect but often at a less than friendly angle.  The statement: "God does not exist" is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. As soon as God appears or is proven to exist, that statement will be falsified.  This is the implicit statement of science about God.

Religion's God statement is: "God exists!"  True to form, God's existence cannot be disproved because you cannot prove a negative: that God does not exist.  This statement is therefore not falsifiable and does not qualify as a hypothesis.  

And so, the chasm between science and religion remains.

BRUCE LEE REVISITED - MY TRUE HERO

In celebration of the Year of the Dragon 2012, this documentary movie was released to pay tribute to the dragon himself - Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee is my hero for the following reasons:

1. He did not only want to be just good in his craft, he wanted to be the best; and he was willing to work his pants off to achieve that.

2. He was often the spokesman and fighter for the weak and the downtrodden.

3. He always used his brains first.  He would not fight you unless your provocations left him no choice.  He was also an original philosophical thinker in his own right.

4. If there ever was an innovator, he was the one. He did not believe in fixed fighting styles. He invented his own moves and was willing to learn from others while thinking all the time how his moves could be improved and adapted to actual fight situations.

5. In our present flap over racism and bigotry world-wide, we will do well looking up to him.  Although he was a Chinese in America, he was full of self-confidence and had high esteem for his own culture. Yet, he was open to teaching this martial arts to students of every stripe as long as they were willing to learn.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY DEBATE 3

This was a largely disappointing 3rd round of presidential debate.  It did not look like 2 candidates trying their best to leave a lasting impression before the actual voting.  There were no sparks, no real edge to their arguments and even less commitment.  It appeared that both were trying to play it safe. But, it told us what we already know - Obama is by far the better speaker and has the advantage of on-the-job experience for the last 4 years.  The only thing working against him is the not-so-rosy economic data.

Romney, on the other hand, appeared unsure and lacking in fresh ideas regarding foreign policy.  His lack of confidence and experience showed up when he seemed to trip up at the beginning of each sentence.  He was only in his element when he strayed into talking about his economic plans and his business acumen.

So, the verdict of this presidential election hinges on the mood of the electorate, whether a change in direction in the economic policies is desired and whether they are ready to bet on a relative newcomer or stay the course and continue with their faith in Obama.